' Muhammad Aslam Cheema, the petitioner herein, was initially employed as Junior Clerk in September, 1964 in the National Bank of Pakistan, the respondent No, 1 and in course of time he was promoted as Officer Grade-III on 1-3-1976. In the year 1977, the petitioner was posted as Officer Grade-III in Bcgowal Branch of Sialkot District of the respondent-bank. In 1978, the Manager of Bcgowal Branch was transferred. His substitute was not appointed for some time and the petitioner was directed to work temporarily as Manager of Bcgowal Branch in addition to his own duties of Officer Grade-HI. In July, 1982, the petitioner was transferred from Begowal Branch to Sambrial Branch as Officer Grade-III. Sometime later he was transferred in the same capacity to Shakargarh Branch of the respondent bank. While posted at Shakargarh, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annex. 'A')He was accused of irregularities committed by him while posted as Officer Grade-III (Ex-Manager) in Bcgowal Branch. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge- sheet denying the charges. A domestic enquiry followed. As a result whereof he was found not guilty. Nevertheless vide order dated 3-9-1983 (Annex. '13'), the petitioner was removed from bank's service. He unsuccessfully filed departmental appeal and subsequently after service of a grievance notice, the petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), before the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala. The grievance petition was contested by respondent-No,
1. The learned Labour Court after recording the parties' evidence and after hearing them allowed the grievance petition of the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits.
2. Respondent No, 1 preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 27-4-1986, allowed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, that at the relevant time the petitioner served as Manager and, therefore, he was not a workman having locus standi to file grievance petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance and secondly that terms and conditions of service of employees of nationalized banks being governed by the Award of Wage Commission which was enforceable through the N.I.R.C. Alone, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
3. The aforesaid judgment dated 27-4-1986, passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore has been assailed through the present writ petition.
4. It is note-worthy that regarding question of jurisdiction of Labour Court, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has based its findings on, a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court but that judgment has since been set aside by, the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The august Supreme Court has found that a dismissed workman of a nationalized bank has locus stand to file grievance petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance, if his dismissal or removal is violate of the Award of the Wage Commission as the Wage Commission Award is enforceable under section 25-A like any other Award. Regarding the second aspect of the matter that if the petitioner happened to be a workman or an employer, it may be observed that this is a question of fact. On this question after recording parties' evidence, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner was a workman while otherwise findings have been recorded by the learned Appellate Tribunal which was, of course, possessed of the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. But if the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal is based on misreading of evidence, the same may be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It has been observed by the learned Appellate Tribunal" in cross-examination he had admitted that he worked as Manager in Bcgowal Branch and during that time he discharged all the duties of a Manager. He dimwitted that his basic salary at that time was Rs,1,200 or Rs,1,300 per month. Ile admitted that he used to write A.C.Rs, of the employees working under him." Annex. 'F' is a copy of evidence led by the parties before the Labour Court. It, transpires from the contents of Annex. 'F' that the petitioner appeared as P.W. 2 and in his statement he deposed that he was actually appointed as Second Officer in Begowal Branch in 1977.
On the transfer of Bashir Ahmad in June, 1978, the petitioner was entrusted additional charge of the post of Manager but besides his additional duties as Manager, he continued performing his original clerical duties as Officer Grade-III. He also disclosed that during the period he performed additional duties as Manager, it was two men branch i,e, the petitioner and a cashier. He gave details of his duties which he performed during the crucial period at Begowal which were certainly of clerical nature. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has failed to consider that duties performed by the petitioner as Manager at Begowal Branch were additional duties being in addition to his original duties as Officer Grade-III. The respondent bank examined R.W. 2 Zahoor Ahmad to show that the petitioner served as Manager at Begowal at the relevant time and that he performed supervisory duties. In his cross-examination, this witness conceded that the petitioner performed the duties of Staff Officer also at Begowal. Prior to entrustment of duties of Manager, he served under Muhammad Mushtaq, Zulfiqar and Bashir Ahmad. This witness could ,not produce any order to show that the petitioner was appointed regularly as Manager. He admitted that when the petitioner started working as Manager at Begowal Branch, no additional staff was posted in that Branch and the petitioner continued performing the duties of Staff Officer also in the said branch. A considered analysis of the parties' evidence leads to the conclusion that at the relevant time the petitioner served as Officer Grade-ill at Begowal Branch and performed clerical duties. At that time D he was also entrusted additional charge of the post of Manager of the said branch but in spite of the additional charge, he continued performing duties as Officer Grade-Ill. The evidence in this behalf has not been read by the learned Tribunal.
5. For the foregoing conclusion, it is held that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal is based on miss-reading and non-reading of evidence so far as the status of the petitioner as workman or otherwise is concerned. In the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Humayun Khan and others 1988 SCMR 1664, it has been held that if the finding of fact is routed from the evidence, there is hardly any scope for the Supreme Court to interfere in Constitutional appeal. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result would be that the judgment of the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, reinstating the petitioner in service with back benefits stands restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.